I'm pretty sure that responding to well-intended and politely phrased criticism with sarcasm is probably also not something that will help us in avoiding losing contributors :p
I agree that this is not an immediately understandable thing about contributions, although I think it should be more understandable by reaearchers than It might be by the man on the Clapham omnibus (an analogy would be 'not publishing the same paper in multiple journals') but my concern is that information exists on an axis. At one end we have the point at which the mass of information presented scares people off before they even hit save. At the other is the point at which the lack of information leads to somebody stumbling into a spiked pit. Our goal is to find a point in the middle, and I'm pretty cautious about attempts to add more documentation given that that's the direction we've historically trended in. On Wednesday, 23 July 2014, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I’m glad it’s that simple (sarcasm intended!). Do we really expect > new/occasional contributors to figure this out? Having been on Wikipedia > for 9 years, it’s all news to me. I always thought that clicking SAVE with > > > > By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use> and you irrevocably > agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License> > and the GFDL > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License> > with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC > BY-SA 3.0 attribution. > > > > that I was releasing **my** contribution, full stop, end of story. If we > expect people to do more than this, shouldn’t it say something at this > point like “If your contribution has previously been published elsewhere, > please click here” and take people to a form where they can supply more > details and then hit SAVE. Let’s make it easier for people to do the right > thing instead of reverting them and losing them as contributors. > > > > Kerry > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org');> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org');>] > *On Behalf Of *Maggie Dennis > *Sent:* Thursday, 24 July 2014 12:42 AM > *To:* Research into Wikimedia content and communities > *Subject:* Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Wikimedia-l] Catching copy and pasting > early > > > > Just a few points inline. :) > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:50 AM, James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jmh...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > To clarify the proposal is: > > > > 1) only looking at new edits that add blocks of text over a certain size > > > > 2) only tagging those edits on a workspace page for further follow-up by > an experienced human editor > > > > 3) only running on articles of WikiProjects that want it and are willing > to follow-up (thus only WPMED for starters) > > > > What it is NOT is: a tool to add notices to article space, a tool to warn > users on their talk pages, or a tool to look at old edits. It is also NOT > many other things. This is a very narrow proposal. > > > > With respect to users who are adding content they own which they have > previously had published. What you do is you get them in an email to agree > to release it under a CC BY SA license and then send that email to OTRS. > > > > > > Alternatively, they can skip this step if they are reproducing materials > from their own website by adding a release to that website. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DCM talks about how. I speak to > that based on my volunteer experience, not my work experience. :) > > > > One further point - if they are the *sole* copyright holder contributing > their own text work to Wikipedia, it must be colicensed under GFDL > according to our terms of use > <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#7._Licensing_of_Content> > . > > > > Maggie > > > > > > > > With respect to the number of edits, WPMED gets about 1000 a day. If we > say about 10% are of a significant size (a rather high estimate) and if we > say copy and paste issues occur in 10% with a same number of false > positives we are looking at 20 edits to review a day. Those within the > project are able to handle this volume in a timely manner. > > > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org');> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > -- > > Maggie Dennis > Senior Community Advocate > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. > -- Sent from a portable device of Lovecraftian complexity.
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
